CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026 - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026 ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/25dhv6ajih0/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dhv6ajih0) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #funding #dns #infrastructure #opensource > author: CHAOSS > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dhv6ajih0 > date created: 2025-01-15 14:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026 >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Review Nominet DNS Fund application process for multi-year funding model — 12:45 #funding - [H2] Explore academic partnerships for rigorous impact evaluation — 18:30 #evaluation - [H3] Develop transparent decision-making criteria for open funding calls — 25:15 #transparency ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Nominet DNS Fund](https://nominet.uk) - [CHAOSS Metrics](https://chaoss.community) ## 📝 Summary - What happened: Amy O'Donnell from Nominet presented their DNS Fund learnings to the CHAOSS Funding Impact Working Group - Why it matters: First-year pilot of £370,000 DNS infrastructure funding reveals critical insights for open source funding models - Key stakeholders: DNS maintainers, individual contributors, funding organizations, academic researchers - Risks and tradeoffs: Balancing lightweight applications with accountability, managing financial year constraints vs. project timelines - Bottom line: Nominet successfully funded 8 projects across 6 countries and is scaling to 3 years with doubled funding and individual maintainer support ## 📖 Main Content Nominet, as the .uk domain registry and public benefit company, launched their first DNS Fund to support open source DNS infrastructure maintainers. Their research with Demos identified three key problems: corporate-biased funding, single funding sources, and exclusion of individual maintainers. The pilot addressed these through transparent principles (public benefit, core need, proven use, right people, value/sustainability) and funded projects ranging from OpenSSL cryptography to DNS testing infrastructure. Key innovations include supporting individual maintainers without requiring organization registration and implementing lightweight 45-minute interviews instead of traditional monitoring frameworks. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=0) — [H1] Introduction and Background - Key idea: Nominet is a public benefit company managing .uk domain with mandate for social impact - Evidence: "We're set up in such a way that our articles of association means we're a company that's limited by guarantee" #### ⏱️ [03:25](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=205) — [H2] Research Phase with Demos - Key idea: Commissioned research to understand DNS funding landscape before launching fund - Evidence: "We commissioned Demos who are a digital think tank...to really understand the context of the landscape in the DNS" #### ⏱️ [06:12](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=372) — [H1] Three Key Funding Problems Identified - Key idea: Research revealed funding bias toward corporate interests, single sources, and organizational requirements - Evidence: "Funding stemming from corporates and not foundations...single sources of funding...funding not necessarily being available for individuals" #### ⏱️ [08:45](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=525) — [H2] Fund Design and Application Process - Key idea: £370,000 available, no minimum amount, up to £100,000 per applicant with 20-minute application goal - Evidence: "We had £370,000 available...no minimum amount so if you only needed £5,000 that was fine" #### ⏱️ [11:30](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=690) — [H1] Expert Advisory Panel Structure - Key idea: CTO-chaired panel with diverse expertise from industry, government, and former sovereign tech agency - Evidence: "Our CTO Ollie chaired a expert advisory panel which included two nomin members...Roy from Icon, Hannah...Dawn MO...and Kalin" #### ⏱️ [12:45](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=765) — [H2] Funding Principles and Criteria - Key idea: Five transparent criteria including public benefit, core need, proven use, right people, and value/sustainability - Evidence: "Public benefit...core need...proven use...right people...value and sustainability" #### ⏱️ [15:20](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=920) — [H1] Eight Successful Projects Announced - Key idea: Funded projects span entire DNS query lifecycle from encryption to validation - Evidence: "We ended up funding eight projects across six countries...from left to right from the user browser and back again" #### ⏱️ [18:30](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=1110) — [H2] Evaluation Methodology Innovation - Key idea: 45-minute interviews replace traditional monitoring frameworks for lighter touch accountability - Evidence: "Instead of having people fill out lots of log frames...we are doing it...just on the basis of interviews" #### ⏱️ [22:15](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=1335) — [H3] Open Call vs Invitation Trade-offs - Key idea: Open calls provide transparency but require significant time investment from applicants - Evidence: "The upside is obviously that it's transparent...on the other hand...it can involve a lot of energy and effort" #### ⏱️ [25:15](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=1515) — [H1] Key Learning Areas for Improvement - Key idea: Three improvement buckets: advisory panel feedback, applicant experience, internal stakeholder alignment - Evidence: "Application form translates into the assessment...applicants...internal stakeholders" #### ⏱️ [28:40](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=1720) — [H2] Financial Year Constraints Challenge - Key idea: Funding cycles don't align well with open source project realities and timelines - Evidence: "Our financial year runs from the end of March...use or lose it...pressure then on the applicants" #### ⏱️ [32:20](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=1940) — [H1] Individual Maintainer Support Achievement - Key idea: Post-FOSDEM policy change now allows individual maintainers to apply without organization registration - Evidence: "Since my presentation at Foste, we were able to put a case to our finance team and have now supported some individual maintainers" #### ⏱️ [35:45](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=2145) — [H2] Future Scaling Plans - Key idea: Doubling funds for next application window with multi-year funding potential - Evidence: "We're doubling the funds...we've got 3 years worth of funding now...you can apply for multiple years" #### ⏱️ [38:10](https://youtu.be/25dhv6ajih0?t=2290) — [H3] Academic Partnership for Rigorous Analysis - Key idea: Exploring Oxford Internet Institute collaboration for independent evaluation rigor - Evidence: "Academic community...Oxford Internet Institute...academic analysis to put some rigor onto the data" ## 📚 References - [Nominet DNS Fund](https://nominet.uk) - [Demos Research](https://demos.co.uk) - [CHAOSS Community](https://chaoss.community) - [Sovereign Tech Agency](https://sovereigntechagency.org) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Nominet identified corporate funding bias in DNS infrastructure through systematic research with think tank Demos - Their pilot fund successfully supported 8 projects with lighter application processes and individual maintainer inclusion - Key challenges include aligning funder financial cycles with open source project needs and balancing transparency with efficiency ## 📰 Newsletter 🎯 **DNS Infrastructure Funding Breakthrough**: Nominet's groundbreaking DNS Fund shows how public benefit organizations can effectively support critical internet infrastructure. Their innovative approach of 45-minute interviews instead of heavy reporting and support for individual maintainers (not just organizations) offers a model for sustainable open source funding. **Key Innovation**: Moving beyond corporate-driven funding to public benefit models that align with maintainer needs rather than profit motives. **WordPress Connection**: This funding model could inspire similar infrastructure support for WordPress core development, security, and performance initiatives. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Study Nominet's transparent principle communication for funding program messaging - Education: Adapt lightweight interview methodology for developer program evaluation - Developer experience: Apply open call vs invitation trade-off analysis to community outreach - Community management: Implement 45-minute feedback sessions instead of heavy survey frameworks #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Review Nominet's five funding principles for internal grant criteria development - Strategic Alignment: Analyze financial year constraint solutions for multi-year project planning - Community Engagement: Explore public benefit funding models for upstream contributions - Developer Support: Implement individual contributor support without organization requirements #### Community - Maintainers: Advocate for lightweight accountability frameworks in funding applications - Contributors: Support individual maintainer funding tracks in grant programs - Sponsors: Promote transparent decision-making criteria publication - Ecosystem: Foster academic partnerships for rigorous impact evaluation #### WordPress - Core: Apply DNS Fund principles to Core Performance Team funding evaluation - Community: Adapt transparent application window approach for WordCamp sponsorship - Documentation: Study Nominet's statement of work streamlining for contributor onboarding - Meta: Explore public benefit funding models for .org infrastructure maintenance #### The WPCC - Programs: Implement 45-minute interview evaluation for fellowship impact assessment - Projects: Develop transparent selection criteria publication for grant decisions - Funding: Explore multi-year funding commitment models for sustained impact #### FAIR - Technical independence: Study public benefit company structure for funding source diversification - Policies: Develop transparent decision-making frameworks based on Nominet model - Governance artifacts: Create funding principle documentation templates ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Public benefit funding models produce less corporate-biased open source development than traditional sponsorship - Lightweight interview-based evaluation generates more honest feedback than formal monitoring frameworks - Individual maintainer funding tracks increase diversity and sustainability in critical infrastructure projects - Transparent funding criteria publication improves application quality and community trust ### 📊 Methodology - Study design: Compare corporate vs public benefit funding recipient motivations and output alignment - Data sources: Analysis of Nominet's 33 applications, 8 funded projects, and post-funding interviews - Experiments: A/B test lightweight vs formal evaluation approaches in grant programs ### ❓ Questions - How can financial year constraints be systematically addressed across different funding organization types? - What quantitative metrics complement qualitative interview approaches for infrastructure funding evaluation? - How do transparent funding principles affect both application quality and community participation rates? ### 🔮 Future Research - Academic analysis of DNS infrastructure funding impact through Oxford Internet Institute partnership - Comparative study of open call vs invitation-based funding application effectiveness - Longitudinal analysis of individual maintainer vs organization funding sustainability outcomes ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Funding organizations should prioritize transparency and lightweight accountability over bureaucratic reporting - Policy: Public benefit company models offer viable alternatives to corporate-driven open source funding - Security: Critical infrastructure requires diversified funding sources to avoid single points of dependency - Education: Maintainers need support understanding funding application processes and criteria - Funding: Multi-year commitments with flexible financial year management improve project sustainability ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th grade (complex funding and technical terminology) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Interactive project mapping on Nominet website, stakeholder visualization - Improve: Funding process flowcharts, DNS infrastructure diagrams, impact dashboards #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video presentation with detailed Q&A discussion - Improve: Podcast version of funding learnings, audio guides for application process #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of technical terms, funding principles explained - Improve: Storytelling examples of successful projects, metaphors for funding ecosystem #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Interactive application process, hands-on project examples - Improve: Funding simulation exercises, step-by-step application walkthroughs #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear criteria framework, systematic evaluation process - Improve: Decision trees for funding eligibility, causal impact models #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Working group discussion format, community Q&A - Improve: Peer review of applications, collaborative funding guidelines development #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Self-guided application process, independent research capability - Improve: Self-assessment tools, reflective evaluation frameworks #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Ecosystem thinking about infrastructure sustainability - Improve: Environmental impact considerations, natural systems analogies ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure in presentation, logical content flow - Improve: Alt text for funding process diagrams, ARIA labels for interactive elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard presentation navigation - Improve: Keyboard-accessible interactive stakeholder maps, tab-navigable funding portals #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard presentation contrast - Improve: High-contrast versions of funding documentation, larger text options #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive presentation format - Improve: Reflow-friendly application forms, mobile-optimized funding information #### Media and captions - Present: Video presentation available - Improve: Auto-generated captions for all funding webinars, transcript downloads #### Forms and interactions - Present: Structured application process - Improve: Clear error messaging, accessible form validation, progress indicators ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Six-country funding distribution, international advisory panel - Improve: Multi-language application support, global South representation #### Inclusive language - Present: Plain language funding criteria, accessible terminology - Improve: Avoid technical jargon barriers, provide glossaries for complex terms #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured interview format, clear timeline expectations - Improve: Multiple communication formats, flexible evaluation approaches #### Representation - Present: Diverse advisory panel with gender and geographic representation - Improve: Explicit inclusion criteria, bias training for evaluators #### Psychological safety - Present: Collaborative conversation approach vs audit mentality - Improve: Clear appeals process, supportive feedback mechanisms ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear logical progression from research findings to fund design - Inductive strength: Generalized lessons from 33 applications to broader funding principles - Causal reasoning: Connected funding problems to specific solution mechanisms - Analogical strength: Applied successful social impact methodologies to technical infrastructure #### Fallacies - Survivorship bias: Focus on successful applicants without analyzing rejected applications systematically - False dilemma: Open call vs invitation framed as binary choice rather than hybrid approaches - Appeal to authority: Heavy reliance on expert advisory panel without community input validation #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Humble, learning-oriented, collaborative with genuine openness to feedback and improvement ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns observed - Attack: No attack patterns observed - Reverse victim/offender: No reversal patterns observed - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Consistently supportive and empowering language toward maintainers and applicants ## 🎯 Conclusion Nominet's DNS Fund represents a significant innovation in public benefit infrastructure funding, successfully addressing corporate bias, supporting individual maintainers, and implementing lightweight accountability. Their transparent principles-based approach and willingness to iterate based on community feedback offers a replicable model for critical open source infrastructure support. The key insight is bal --- ## Full Transcript [00:02] Okay, [00:04] it looks like it's working. Um, okay. [00:07] Thank you everyone for coming. Um, this [00:09] time it's going to be me moderating the [00:11] session. And we have Amy O'Donnell here [00:14] from Nominette who has kindly agreed to [00:16] give us a presentation um on this new [00:19] funding initiative, some learnings and [00:21] anything else that she wanted to share. [00:23] Um actually Don saw her presentation at [00:26] um Fosdom and thought that it would be a [00:28] great idea if we have her here. Um so [00:31] yes I think we can go ahead with the [00:33] presentation. Amy just feel free to [00:35] share I think um I hope you have access [00:38] to sharing but let me know if not. Um [00:40] okay nice. Perfect. [00:43] Um yeah [00:46] going to give the floor to you Amy. [00:51] It's so great to be here. Thank you so [00:54] much for having me and um so nice to be [00:56] invited into your community. So firstly [00:59] just want to say thank you and yes Dawn [01:02] it was fantastic to meet you at Foste. I [01:04] was blown away by how busy it was and [01:07] how much of a maze it was. Um so it was [01:11] uh fantastic to just get to know that [01:14] community and really uh embark on this [01:19] kind of learning journey that we're [01:20] going through as nominate. So um very [01:24] much wearing our learning hats, our [01:26] humble hats. Um and so really open to if [01:30] you want to stop me to ask questions or [01:33] you have feedback along the way. I just [01:36] thought a little presentation um might [01:38] help uh set the scene a little bit of [01:40] what we're trying to do. So yeah, my [01:43] name's Amy. I'm a social impact lead at [01:45] Nominette. We are the registry that [01:47] manages the.uk domain and other top [01:50] level domains. Um and we're set up in [01:53] such a way that our articles of [01:55] association means we're a company that's [01:58] limited by guarantee. It means we can't [02:00] make profit in traditional ways and our [02:02] mandate comes from the UK government. [02:05] Um, so from that perspective, we are a [02:08] public benefit company. So any money [02:11] that we don't reinvest back into our [02:13] technology stack, um, we have a a lot of [02:17] work in our social impact team looking [02:19] at at public benefits and and and what [02:21] impact we can have in that area. And [02:24] while traditionally my role has looked [02:25] at things like digital skills and online [02:28] safety, Nominette's recently been really [02:32] trying to reflect and think about how we [02:34] can align our public benefit mission [02:36] more closely with our day-to-day work. [02:39] Um, and that's where we sort of came up [02:42] with the idea of working more closely on [02:44] open-source uh domain name system um [02:48] activities. So, we set out really with [02:51] this fund to improve the security, [02:53] long-term sustainability and resilience [02:54] of the DNS um focused on open-source [02:58] projects and particularly maintainers. [03:01] So, we weren't looking for new projects [03:04] or innovations necessarily as we set [03:06] out. Um but but really those those [03:09] projects that are doing the nuts and [03:11] bolts of the plumbing of of the DNS um [03:14] architecture. [03:16] Um so really keen to have a conversation [03:18] with you all. I hope not to speak too [03:20] much. Um but really not only what we [03:24] have learned in this first year that [03:26] we've been piloting this project, but we [03:29] are hoping to scale, we've got approval [03:31] now for three further years of funding. [03:34] So it really is a window where we can [03:36] open up that learning and implement um [03:39] changes um as we progress. Um I should [03:42] also say that when we initially set out [03:46] um to to to look at this area of work, [03:48] we were going to partner with the [03:49] sovereign tech agency. Um but for one [03:52] reason or another that didn't work out [03:53] and so it is a it is a project that [03:56] nominate have sort of stood up by [03:58] ourselves but we really are interested [04:00] in how we can broker better [04:02] partnerships, better relationships and [04:05] kind of collaborate better in the space [04:07] as well. So where did we start? Um I [04:10] think any good funding starts with doing [04:13] your research and doing your homework. [04:15] So we commissioned Demos who are a [04:17] digital um think tank, a digital [04:20] consultancy agency who interviewed lots [04:24] of different stakeholders to really [04:25] understand the context of the the [04:28] landscape in the in the DNS. Um and we [04:32] had these questions which is where [04:34] should we focus our investment to best [04:36] support the technology e ecosystem and [04:39] what funding model should we adopt and [04:41] why. Um and it was really interesting [04:45] because there were lots of dimensions to [04:47] this a fantastic mapping which I can [04:49] share with you. we did like this kumu [04:52] which is a kind of interactive [04:55] um stakeholder map um and really looked [04:58] at at what it was that we should we [05:00] should we should explore. So there were [05:03] some really some questions which were [05:05] quite um insightful to us and one area [05:10] that we we looked at was that existing [05:13] digital infrastructure really was a [05:14] priority for our members and our staff. [05:16] So that came out as something like [05:18] really strong over um developing and [05:21] innovating on um new new work or [05:25] focusing on things that were too um [05:28] exploratory or maybe linked to [05:30] Nominette's own digital infrastructure. [05:33] Um and you can see here also that the [05:35] open source community was far and away [05:39] um a key uh [05:42] community to look at in terms of who's [05:44] best placed to fix the issues and [05:46] challenges. Um someone said invest your [05:49] profit into open-source software and [05:51] development. Seriously, nothing else. [05:55] Um and it was quite interesting also [05:57] that we um asked some advisers and some [06:00] experts [06:02] and to to really understand what our [06:05] unique role could be in this landscape [06:07] because we know that when people who are [06:09] being [06:11] um being paid to do open source or doing [06:13] it at the behest of a for-profit [06:15] corporation the motivations are going to [06:18] inherently steer them towards those [06:20] profit driven motivations. So it's [06:23] something that I'm always very conscious [06:24] of as we are very conscious of as a team [06:26] is our own power in a system. So what [06:30] what role do we play? What you know [06:34] intentionally or not a funer will always [06:37] make an impact on a on a landscape. Um [06:40] what what are we driving and how can we [06:42] unearth those power dynamics so that we [06:44] can have a really upfront um and and and [06:47] honest conversation about the influence [06:50] and the impact that we have. [06:52] So the demos funding really resulted in [06:56] three key findings about the problems of [07:00] funding open-source infrastructure. Um [07:03] which you're welcome to disagree with me [07:05] or not if you if you see otherwise. Um [07:09] but we saw some trends around funding [07:12] stemming from corporates and not [07:14] foundations which can bias development [07:16] towards corporate interest. [07:19] We saw single sources of funding, so one [07:22] funer, one project. And also funding not [07:26] necessarily being available for [07:27] individuals or individual maintainers, [07:30] only projects and organizations. [07:33] And by no stretch have we been able to [07:35] address all of these problems. I'm not [07:37] purporting that. Um, but we definitely [07:40] have um made some steps towards that. In [07:43] fact, Dorne, you'll be interested to [07:45] know that since my presentation at [07:47] Foste, we were able to put a case to our [07:50] finance team and have now supported some [07:52] individual maintainers, not requiring [07:54] them to register as organizations. So, [07:57] um that initially was going to be a big [07:59] barrier for us that you had to be a [08:01] legally registered organization. Um but [08:03] we've been able to get around that [08:05] albeit there will be some kind of [08:06] funding caps and some limits to that [08:09] amount of funding. um but um something [08:11] that we're sort of learning as we go [08:13] along how we how we work in sync with [08:16] finance teams to mitigate some of the [08:17] risks that they see um and work with [08:20] those. And then on the second uh problem [08:23] uh we definitely haven't got around [08:25] that. We've been in some discussions [08:26] with different uh uh other funding uh [08:31] sources and and and funders of this kind [08:33] of work and trying to think about what [08:36] funders or entities would bring the same [08:38] kind of values or perspective that [08:40] nominate are bringing to the table here. [08:43] Um and so that's a kind of TBC at the [08:46] moment. It's very much just our funding [08:48] going onto these particular projects [08:50] that we're uh supporting. But I think [08:54] that that diversification and and and [08:57] funders pulling together um can often [08:59] make things um make for a stronger uh [09:03] more dynamic uh opportunity. [09:06] The other thing that we're exploring at [09:07] the moment is in our first round we only [09:10] were able to announce for one year worth [09:12] of funding. So it's like six months [09:14] worth of activities. Um and we're now in [09:17] the process as we're getting ready to [09:19] review all of our learning and as we've [09:21] taken stock um think about whether we [09:23] can do multi multissource funding so [09:25] give more certainty over the longer term [09:28] potentially up to three years worth of [09:29] funding. So what did we end up doing on [09:32] the basis of this uh findings from [09:35] demos? Um, I should say that they they [09:37] came up with the idea or some other [09:40] ideas about more innovative um o uh [09:43] open-source DNS development things like [09:46] DNS skillsmies. So the future of skills, [09:48] the pipeline of skills, but we decided [09:51] to just stick to the the the the [09:54] cleanest message and the most simple [09:57] sort of foundations of just working with [10:00] uh maintainers of existing open-source [10:03] uh DNS infrastructure. And while we [10:06] might explore some of those other areas [10:08] that came up in the research, we really [10:10] did want to stick to the knitting of um [10:12] those foundations. So we set out with [10:15] the nominate DNS fund to fund and [10:16] improve the security of and [10:19] sustainability of open DNS open source [10:22] and in the first round we had £370,000 [10:26] available GBP and we said there was no [10:29] minimum amount so if you only needed [10:31] £5,000 that was fine um but up to [10:35] £100,000 per applicant [10:37] um and we had 33 applications come [10:40] forward to us in the end in that window [10:42] in September October time. Um, and we [10:45] wanted to really make sure that the [10:47] application was as light touch as [10:49] possible. So, we had uh one of our [10:52] advisory panel really challenged us that [10:53] it should be a 20inut application. So, [10:56] some people said that that that worked [10:58] for them. They were able to share links [11:01] um signpost to existing uh collateral or [11:05] content that was online um to evidence [11:08] the work they were doing. but others [11:09] said that it did take them longer and [11:11] there were things that could be clearer [11:13] uh in the application process that would [11:15] have streamlined that for them. Um we [11:18] also recognized that while we do have [11:20] some DNS expertise within Nominette um [11:24] we really wanted to make sure that we [11:25] were listening to the broader community. [11:28] So our CTO Ollie uh chaired a expert [11:32] advisory panel which included two nomin [11:35] members. So that's Pete and Michael from [11:37] Mythic Beasts and Black Knight uh [11:40] respectively. We had Roy from Icon, [11:43] Hannah who conducted the original [11:45] research from Demos and then you may [11:47] already know because they were at Fostm [11:49] as well. Dawn MO who was previously [11:52] sovereign tech agency and Kalin who was [11:54] previously Linux and now with probable [11:57] um and they were fantastic [12:00] process but also in helping us to [12:02] establish and be transparent in the [12:04] principles of what we were setting out [12:06] to fund um and we're really hoping to [12:08] work with them again as we move forward. [12:11] um we did follow sovereign tech agency's [12:14] lead in this idea of being really [12:16] transparent in the principles that we [12:17] were adopting um in the funding. So um [12:21] we set out with these criteria of public [12:24] benefit um working to uh the extent to [12:28] which that the the project that that was [12:31] being applied for was enabling a safe, [12:33] secure and resilient running of critical [12:35] infrastructure. [12:36] Um we also spoke about core need so uh [12:41] to what extent the operation of the [12:42] global DNS depends on that solution. Um [12:45] we did um cover pro proven use so the [12:49] capability of that already being used [12:52] and at scale and this was one that when [12:54] I opened it to the floor in Fostam I [12:56] think was the most potentially [12:57] controversial and people had lots of [12:59] feedback saying um it's while it's good [13:02] to talk about proven use and maintainers [13:04] we should also be allowing space for you [13:06] know keeping our eyes open to the next [13:08] steps for innovation and it shouldn't [13:10] necessarily be that something's already [13:12] operating at scale in order to warrant [13:14] being successful uccessful for funding. [13:16] So I think that's one that we will [13:17] definitely be reviewing and looking at. [13:19] Um I found the right people quite [13:21] interesting because often times it [13:23] wasn't just is the person uh leading the [13:27] development of this the most skilled but [13:30] um we were also asking questions about [13:31] whether they were sustainable. We've had [13:33] some applications of individuals [13:36] operating um you know voluntarily in [13:40] their own time um and sort of being able [13:43] to catalyze a a conversation about [13:45] sustainability and whether they need to [13:47] actually add more contributors to [13:49] represent the right team um in in in [13:52] their in their work. So it's gone beyond [13:54] this idea of just having the skills and [13:56] experience but also looking at that [13:58] sustainability. [13:59] And finally just you know an expected [14:02] question about value and sustainability [14:04] there. [14:06] Um so actually today it's very timely [14:08] because I'm very excited that after [14:10] about a year's worth of work uh we have [14:13] actually announced five of the eight [14:16] successful applicants from our first [14:18] window. So um this is um if you go to [14:21] the Nominette website this is actually [14:23] an interactive um so you can click on [14:26] all the different projects um and learn [14:28] about them all. So we ended up funding [14:30] eight projects across six countries um [14:33] and these are just five of them. So if [14:36] you imagine them in a DNS query uh you [14:39] know from left to right from the user [14:41] browser and back again um we're [14:44] positioning these as not just the [14:47] organizations but the the role that the [14:49] projects play in the funding ecosystem. [14:52] So you can see it starts with um [14:54] encrypted transport. So we funded the [14:56] open SSL library. It's a toolkit for [14:59] general purpose uh uh cryptography and [15:02] secure communications. [15:05] Um in performance and testing we funded [15:07] um bind nine under internet systems [15:09] consortium looking at their testing [15:11] environment. That one was quite [15:13] interesting because we did initially [15:15] articulate that we didn't want to fund [15:17] hardware. Um but this was a no-brainer [15:19] in terms of the hardware needed because [15:21] it wasn't the the load was too high on a [15:24] on a cloud uh testing environment. So [15:27] that did end up they did end up buying [15:29] some some hardware with our funds. Um [15:32] also Quad9 which uh was described as the [15:35] public bus of um [15:38] supporting resolver implementations and [15:40] and security protections. And then um on [15:43] the right hand side here we've got NLNet [15:45] labs cascade which is a DNS seexer [15:49] um and ox valid valids which is uh about [15:53] validating large zones in a short time [15:56] along the pipeline. So there are a [15:58] number of others and actually the ones [16:00] that are missing from here are those [16:02] smaller organizations or those [16:04] individuals because they have taken a [16:05] bit more time uh for us to support them [16:08] and and set them up. Um so as I was [16:12] preparing for today uh Adrienne said [16:14] that it's you know a group that's really [16:16] interested in learning and what we've [16:18] learned and and looking at different [16:20] funding models assessing their their [16:22] value and their impact. So I was hoping [16:25] that we could also touch on that very [16:27] briefly just to say that Nominette [16:29] doesn't normally do open calls for [16:31] applications in the in the past. We've [16:33] always done very intentional invitations [16:35] to apply where we've done the research [16:37] and that's enabled us to reach out to [16:39] the right organizations. So this has [16:41] been quite new for us to do that open [16:43] call. Um it is you know there are [16:46] upsides and downsides. The upside is [16:48] obviously that it's transparent and it's [16:50] open to everyone and um you know you can [16:54] you you don't have to rely on the [16:56] research to identify the particular [16:58] organizations you want to work with. But [17:00] on the other hand, I think it can [17:02] involve a lot of energy and effort in [17:04] people going through applications not [17:06] knowing whether they're going to be [17:07] successful or not. And that time is when [17:10] their time is so invaluable and [17:12] precious, especially when they're doing [17:13] this on a voluntary basis or are not for [17:15] profofits or who who who struggle to to [17:18] do this kind of work. You know, in the [17:19] past, we've been able to compensate uh [17:22] for time put into applications because [17:24] we've had a smaller call of people [17:26] putting forward, but we've not been able [17:28] to do that in this case. Um, and also [17:31] just the time taken to, you know, short [17:34] list, to organize, to put this through [17:36] to an application, uh, panel. You know, [17:39] some of some of our panelists said it [17:41] took them a day. Some of them said it [17:42] took them two weeks because they really [17:44] didn't know as much about the DNS and [17:46] had to go away and do all their [17:48] research. Um, and as we go on this [17:51] journey, you know, we really did treat [17:53] year 1, uh, 2025 as our pilot. um and [17:57] are in the process now of implementing [17:59] changes based on feedback that we've [18:01] received. Um and that's really in three [18:04] key buckets. Um so we had the expert [18:07] advisory panel and we've now interviewed [18:10] them and and involved them in their [18:12] feedback in how things went. So a big [18:15] learning we have is about how the [18:18] application form translates into the [18:21] assessment. So um it wasn't always clear [18:25] in the questions we were asking what [18:27] principles were being assessed. So the [18:28] advisory panel found that they had to [18:30] read between the lines somewhat in how [18:33] how they were drawing on the principles [18:35] to assess the answers as a whole. Um so [18:38] we're looking at whether we can be more [18:39] we can be clearer by answer by answer um [18:43] what principles that we're looking for [18:45] in in the assessment and indeed how that [18:47] spurts out on the other end as well into [18:49] a statement of work because there's then [18:51] been quite a lot of work post the [18:53] decision um to create that statement of [18:56] work where the successful applicants [18:58] have been able to then you know say [19:00] exactly what their the funding is for to [19:02] attach that to their contracts. Um, and [19:04] we think that we could really streamline [19:06] that a lot a lot better through the [19:08] application process. So, while we might [19:10] compromise some of the simplicity that [19:13] we initially started to introduce by [19:15] saying you can just throw a link in, you [19:18] can just say whatever you like, um, we [19:21] do think that some of the work up front [19:23] to give the application process through [19:26] um, decision- making into statement of [19:29] work more structure uh, will help us [19:31] better. [19:33] Um and then the advisory panel just get [19:36] have basically said that they really [19:38] think it's gone down very well and they [19:40] they've played quite a big role in [19:41] outreach um within their own communities [19:44] taking this to events speaking doing [19:47] that outreach for us to make sure that [19:48] we're reaching the right people. Um so [19:50] they also said it would be good to have [19:52] a a larger a longer window so that [19:54] there's that time and scope to to build [19:57] in um [20:00] more awareness amongst people that might [20:02] be applying. The second big bucket that [20:04] we have in terms of our learning um that [20:07] we've been looking at is the applicants. [20:09] So both successful and successful. Um [20:11] we've been asking their feedback on how [20:13] it felt to apply um how they heard about [20:16] the the opportunity um what they'd like [20:20] to see improved in terms of the process [20:22] and the wider community as well. So just [20:24] like going to Fost uh we're we're [20:27] planning a few other events. So RIPE and [20:29] OAR for example in May. um we want to [20:32] just be part of this community and um uh [20:36] continue to to be transparent and and [20:39] open with our learning. Um and another [20:42] area that we're exploring mostly via [20:44] Kalin who's um and uh with probable was [20:48] previously Linux Foundation. He's been [20:51] connecting us up with the academic [20:52] community as well. So the likes of the [20:54] Oxford Internet Institute so that we [20:56] could potentially be doing some uh [20:59] academic uh analysis uh to to to put [21:03] some rigor onto the data that we've [21:05] collected so far. So in our um typically [21:09] in our uh social impact work, we have a [21:12] third-party eval monitoring evaluation [21:14] partner. So they're independent from [21:16] Nominette. So when any learning is [21:17] shared or reflected on they are sort of [21:20] independent and and work separately from [21:22] us. So you often get a much more open [21:25] and honest conversation even in the [21:27] dynamics of how we are as a funer that [21:30] we always like to reflect on. So um [21:33] we're just we're still in the process of [21:34] of working that out. Um in terms of [21:37] evaluating the success and impact of the [21:39] pro projects it themselves um we also [21:43] have uh we we feel this tension between [21:46] wanting to keep things simple and light [21:49] touch on people that are doing this work [21:51] but also ensuring that we are doing our [21:53] diligence and we're accountable for the [21:55] funds that we have and that we have that [21:57] commitment to learning. So we've also [21:59] designed um instead of having people [22:02] fill out lots of log frames and [22:04] monitoring valuation forms which I've [22:07] come myself from the charity sector and [22:09] it used to be a real pain and every [22:11] donor wanted something different. Um we [22:14] are doing it at the moment just on the [22:15] basis of interviews. So a short 45minut [22:18] informal chat at the beginning and at [22:20] the end um to talk about the changes [22:22] that the funding's enabled um the impact [22:25] that it's had and contextualizing that [22:26] in the geopolitical environment. Um and [22:30] then the final one which I think is [22:32] really critical is our internal [22:33] stakeholders. So we've had to work very [22:35] closely with communications teams, [22:38] digital experts, um our own DNS um [22:41] experts within Nominette as well as our [22:44] kind of procurement, finance, legal [22:45] teams. Um so we've held a we held a a [22:49] really fascinating washup. We use lots [22:51] of virtual post-it notes um and a uh [22:54] thinking in in the weeds of the detail [22:56] of how we can make our offer uh clearer [23:01] um more easy to understand [23:04] um what what other things we're prepared [23:06] to publish like publishing that [23:09] monitoring and evaluation detail um [23:12] being more offering more clarity in [23:14] dates. We know that developers don't [23:16] like coming soon. Um so avoiding that as [23:20] much as possible. Um and just trying to [23:22] make sure that we're reflecting and uh [23:24] implementing changes. Um and now that we [23:27] have successful applicants, we also [23:29] think that is a further tool that we can [23:31] use to tell that story. So that [23:34] transparency in how those um projects [23:38] met the criteria, met the principles um [23:41] and hopefully kind of indicate um what [23:44] would make for a successful application [23:46] in in future rounds. So, we're doubling [23:48] the funds and it will be launched um in [23:51] towards the end of April, beginning of [23:53] May. Um and we're hoping for a bigger [23:55] application window for activities to [23:57] start in September 26. And as I say, [23:59] we've got 3 years worth of funding now. [24:02] At the moment, um we we're likely to [24:06] only announce one year's worth, but it [24:08] might be that you can then apply for an [24:10] extension and then in a future year, we [24:11] could say you can apply for multiple [24:13] years. And we will have a track now [24:15] where previously you had to be an uh an [24:18] entity to be eligible. We will have a [24:21] track that individual maintainers under [24:24] a certain threshold of budget uh will be [24:26] able to apply. I feel like I've spoken [24:28] far too much. Um you've all got my [24:31] email. I'll write it as well in the [24:33] chat. Um so if you wanted to follow up [24:34] with me separately, I'm really [24:36] delighted. But otherwise, I'm really [24:38] keen on your thoughts like your [24:39] reflections. Um oh, and already got a [24:43] question there. We got 33 applications. [24:45] So, actually, I was really pleased. Uh I [24:48] thought we were going to get about 12 [24:50] because we're a new kid on the block and [24:52] I wasn't sure uh whether whether we [24:56] would be known and whether we would get [24:57] outreach instead of the right list list [24:59] serves. But I think that 33 felt really [25:02] good, really positive, but also really [25:04] manageable for the first time that [25:05] you're trying to run a fund. And we [25:07] wanted to put every single applicant to [25:09] our expert advisory panel. So we didn't [25:11] do any only very basic eligibility [25:14] shortlisting. So you know projects that [25:16] were evidently not meeting the criteria [25:19] um were were excluded from that but they [25:21] all liked seeing every every application [25:24] and and I think 33 was probably pushing [25:26] the limits of what we were asking of [25:28] them to review. Uh Alexandra I can see [25:31] your hand. [25:32] >> Yes. Uh thank you very much Amy for the [25:34] uh nice insights and uh presentation. So [25:37] uh really a great initiative. So, uh I [25:41] had a question um about this process you [25:46] were describing um before you basically [25:49] make uh the application for open. So you [25:52] described that at the beginning you did [25:54] some research and basically pre-selected [25:56] organizations [25:57] which you invited for a application. Uh [26:01] so based on which methodologies did you [26:05] do the research? So was it kind of I [26:07] don't know mining repositories or like [26:10] Yeah, I I I'm interested a bit about [26:14] some more details of this um research [26:17] going on for selecting these um right [26:19] organizations. [26:21] >> Yes. So sorry I should be really clear [26:24] that that's what we've traditionally [26:25] done. So when we've done funding on [26:28] digital inclusion or uh digital skills [26:33] working with young people in their [26:34] digital lives, we've employed [26:36] organizations to do both fieldbased [26:40] um sort of uh desk based research to [26:44] look at reports and um map uh different [26:48] stakeholders but also conduct [26:50] interviews. So with government [26:52] stakeholders with well-known um uh [26:56] organizations in that space and [26:58] basically we'll often do an analysis of [27:03] the certain levers of the theory of [27:05] change that we believe needs to to occur [27:08] so that then we can identify the [27:10] organizations that we want to invite to [27:12] submit their proposals to us. So, a [27:14] really good example of that is connected [27:16] to our countering online harm fund, [27:18] which is uh work we've been doing to [27:21] take all the nasties off the internet. [27:23] And there's some um work we did with [27:25] public um I can share a link with you [27:28] and it kind of maps the moves that we [27:30] really anticipated around the need for [27:33] cross- sector collaboration [27:35] um the need for academic organizations [27:37] to work with civil society groups um and [27:41] and the need to think systemically [27:43] rather than uh preventatively uh on some [27:47] of these this work juxtapose that [27:50] however with this nominate DNS fund [27:52] which is the first time we've done an [27:54] open call. So we we did do conduct this [27:56] research with Demos to help us say how [27:59] what level should this be launched? What [28:01] are our options position with our board [28:03] to say should this be about human rights [28:05] and positioning this as a very much [28:07] connected to values? Should this be [28:09] about DNS skills and the pipeline of [28:11] who's coming to this space or should we [28:13] just launch a fund that's about the very [28:15] basic maintainers of this work? and we [28:17] centered on that final one. [28:19] >> Okay. Okay. [28:21] >> And in the end was an open call. I can [28:23] actually um [28:26] show you the [28:28] uh [28:33] I I hid it from my um [28:39] presentation, but I can show you. [28:44] This is what we this is how we would [28:47] sort of went about it. [28:50] So it's got like um [28:54] can send this link to you. So it's a a [28:57] mapping that we did of all the different [28:59] organizations [29:01] um multistakeholder organizations, tech [29:03] companies, funders and then selected um [29:07] a sample of those to interview to best [29:09] understand the system. And it basically [29:11] found lack of diverse funding and profit [29:14] driven uh companies providing funding. [29:19] >> Cool. Very interesting. [29:26] >> Yes. Thank you so much Amy and um sorry [29:29] Don and Paul. Um but I my question was [29:33] around um we you talked about the being [29:37] lightweight in terms of monitoring these [29:39] projects or having some idea of okay [29:41] what's the effect of the funding and [29:43] being accountable for the funds um and [29:46] so I think your current um approach is [29:49] to have a 25minut interview before and [29:51] after the funding and I was wondering [29:53] what are the main questions that you [29:55] would be asking there or if there's even [29:57] a set list of questions or it's more [29:59] about their experience of the funding. [30:01] Um, and then maybe the one before the [30:03] funding happened is maybe just them [30:05] explaining the project and the different [30:07] questions that you are asking in the [30:09] assessment part. So, I was just [30:10] wondering if you have a set of questions [30:12] there um that you'd like to ask from [30:15] these projects. [30:16] >> I thought you would ask this. So, this [30:20] is the [30:22] questions. Oh, [30:27] it's a 45inut [30:30] um interview. Can you read this? Okay. [30:32] Should I zoom in [30:34] >> just a little bit? Maybe. Thank you. [30:37] >> Uh a collaborative conversation, not an [30:40] audit, to understand the current state [30:41] from the perspective of the people [30:43] involved. And then at the end, we plan [30:45] for a second interview to explore your [30:47] experience so we can improve. [30:50] Um, so it starts on the individual [30:52] level. Personally, how would you [30:55] describe your role, the workload of your [30:56] project you contribute to? What does [30:59] your day-to-day week look like? Um, [31:01] what's the one thing you're hoping this [31:03] funding will change for you? Um, how [31:06] would you describe your current work [31:07] life balance and those of your current [31:10] maintainers? Um, then a section [31:12] dedicated to the contribution and of the [31:14] project. So, it's about the core [31:16] objectives, ambition. Uh what would you [31:19] describe as the current life stage of [31:21] the project you're focused on? Are they [31:22] an early growth or mature maintenance [31:24] focused phase? Uh two to three most [31:27] important things you hope to achieve [31:30] which is like our kind of theory of [31:31] change or definition of success. Um [31:34] moving on to the kind of technical [31:36] challenges and the projects that you're [31:38] working on. What are your priorities for [31:40] improvement? [31:41] Describing the state of your [31:43] documentation and is there something [31:45] that would look like a win for you? [31:47] We've got sections on social and [31:50] community health. Uh is the workload [31:53] manageable? What are the goals for you [31:55] in the community with this funding? Uh [31:58] economic and operational state. Um are [32:01] you relying on volunteer efforts, [32:03] donations, other sponsorships? Um what [32:06] are the operational costs that you have [32:08] and are there any risks that you see [32:10] integrating this funding in? And then [32:12] stepping out a bit further to look at [32:14] the ecosystem, how it fits within your [32:17] wider DNS open source ecosystem, your [32:20] dependents, your collaborators, and any [32:23] partnerships that you hope the funding [32:25] might help you build or strengthen. And [32:27] then we're talking about some metrics. [32:29] Now, we all know that funding numbers of [32:31] things uh counting numbers of things [32:33] only gives a very small um part of a [32:37] story. Um uh but but we think it is [32:41] important to you know think about are [32:43] there things we can measure uh around [32:45] active users, maintainers, active [32:48] contributors. Um so the aim is to do [32:51] this uh now and then repeat uh once the [32:57] projects are completed and uh analyze [32:59] for change. [33:01] >> Nice. Thank you so much. Amy [33:06] >> Paul, do you want to go ahead? Yeah, [33:08] sure. Uh, thanks very much for the [33:10] really uh interesting presentation, Amy. [33:12] Um, full disclosure, I work at the [33:15] Sovereign Tech Agency, so I know Mo and [33:17] obviously know Killian as well and can [33:19] remember some of the back and forth [33:21] trying to set up the partnership. Um, [33:24] but really happy to see uh the fund off [33:26] the ground. Uh, and also really thrilled [33:28] to see like how you're approaching um [33:30] questions of impact because obviously I [33:33] think there's, you know, uh, areas of [33:35] shared interest there. Um I had two kind [33:38] of uh questions that were related to [33:40] this. Um one of the things that we found [33:44] uh particularly with the sovereign tech [33:45] fund uh as a public benefit company if [33:49] you like is that we operate to uh kind [33:53] of um yeah calendar year budget [33:56] planning. Um, and sometimes that budget [33:58] planning doesn't necessarily align [34:00] particularly well with the sort of [34:02] realities of open source communities [34:04] that are very dynamic and sometimes need [34:06] to, you know, adjust um their project [34:10] management or their work packages uh in [34:13] light of what's happening within their [34:15] communities. Whereas, you know, as a [34:17] kind of bureaucratic entity, we need we [34:19] have certain reporting requirements. Um [34:22] I wondered if you'd had any sort of [34:24] instances where there's a tension [34:26] between [34:28] um the funer and funee relationship uh [34:32] in your work so far um because of the [34:35] kind of respective nature of the two I [34:38] guess. Um and then relatedly um I find [34:42] it really interesting that you're doing [34:44] the the these kind of lightweight [34:46] interviews before and after. Um, and I [34:50] wondered um just was that a that was a [34:54] consideration from the beginning, right, [34:57] to to sort of put the interviews at the [34:59] beginning and end of the process, right? [35:02] And who who does it? Is it a [35:04] technologist or is it someone from your [35:06] kind of uh social impact team? [35:11] >> Thanks so much, Paul. Um, [35:14] just writing that down. Okay. Um so yeah [35:17] very good question on the first I find [35:20] um this to be a real sticking point for [35:24] uh the the financial year that we are uh [35:28] attached to in terms of getting money [35:30] out of the door if that makes sense. So [35:33] our financial year runs from the end of [35:35] March for one year. Um and often our [35:39] activities start to kick kick off in [35:41] April. Um and then you have and then you [35:44] have quite a lot of work in terms of all [35:46] right when when should we schedule the [35:47] the window for applications? When should [35:49] we when should we get these things [35:51] signed off? And we're always a little [35:52] bit over ambitious in thinking oh that [35:54] will you know signing a contract that [35:56] should take a what a few weeks. No [35:58] sometimes it you know and we have to [35:59] allow for more time. Um but what we then [36:02] have is because we've budgeted for that [36:04] fund in that financial year, the [36:07] activities or the the signature of that [36:09] contract has to happen within that [36:11] financial year. It's a case of use or [36:13] lose it. So um we do we do struggle with [36:17] that and I think we do have um a lot of [36:21] pressure then on the the the applicants [36:24] the successful applicants to shoehorn [36:28] some of their activities into our [36:30] funding structure um just to make sure [36:32] it gets done but I think that there are [36:34] ways around it. So something we have [36:36] done with our counting online harm fund [36:38] for example is to to um get sign off for [36:43] 3 years worth of funding. So you're not [36:45] doing this kind of um not only are you [36:48] then offering more sustainable funds but [36:51] you can you can look more into the [36:53] future and allocate that budget [36:55] according to when that fund is needed [36:57] across those financial years. um and and [37:01] something that then gives more certainty [37:02] and less of this kind of squeeze to [37:05] quickly get something through and and [37:07] signed off. Um I think the other thing [37:11] is uh I was going to say was uh [37:19] it just um our learning for next year is [37:24] working backwards from when there's [37:27] going to be sufficient time for delivery [37:29] of projects within a certain financial [37:31] year as well. So that should be on us to [37:34] put put um our emphasis on bringing that [37:38] application window forward so that the [37:40] activities can fit within the financial [37:42] year rather than um not. So there are [37:45] just some things that we can't avoid. [37:48] But the other thing to say is we can get [37:50] around it too. It's not like it it goes [37:53] into the abyss. Like sometimes we're [37:55] underspent and it just means that the [37:57] next year we have to make a case for our [37:59] board to up the funding. It's still in [38:01] the bank account. It's still there. Um [38:04] and we also have had um in our social [38:06] impact work some strategies like we've [38:09] been working with a really cool [38:10] organization which um is called the [38:14] charities aid charity aid foundation and [38:16] you can basically put financial a [38:19] financial [38:21] uh donation. So it has to be to a [38:23] charity. So it couldn't be just to an [38:24] open source organization. It was some of [38:26] some of the organizations we've funded [38:28] are charities. But as long as you're in [38:30] under UK law funding a charity, you can [38:33] almost like a little squirrel squirrel [38:35] that there and that way um you can [38:38] transfer that into a future financial [38:40] year as well. So there's ways that we [38:42] can manage our finances to do better and [38:45] more effective planning. But I think [38:47] overall, Paul, I would just say I really [38:48] relate to that sense of funders being [38:52] under financial year restrictions based [38:55] on our financial audits and how things [38:58] run. [38:59] um how we mitigate the impact of the [39:02] pressure of that going then onto our [39:04] applicants and I think it's something [39:06] that we we need to learn more about and [39:09] lean more into because it is often a [39:12] case of okay quick get the money out the [39:15] door um so I can really relate to that. [39:18] Um your second question was about the [39:20] lightweight interviews. So yeah, [39:22] definitely was um something we worked [39:24] very closely with Kalin on because of [39:26] his passion for academic communities and [39:30] measurement um and uh set that up from [39:34] the beginning. Um and at the moment it's [39:37] going to be with our social impact team. [39:38] So I'm obviously very conscious of those [39:40] power dynamics that um we want to have a [39:44] cut through and have an honest [39:45] conversation. Um and it might be that [39:48] for future years we we do look at an [39:50] independent evaluator such as in focus [39:53] that we work for that work with us [39:55] currently on our social impact programs. [39:57] So they manage all of our kind of [39:59] independent evaluations. Um and again [40:02] the involvement of the academic [40:03] community. So Oxford Internet Institute [40:06] for example, we would love to um explore [40:09] some conversations about how we apply [40:12] more rigor to that. Um but at the moment [40:14] it wouldn't be a te a technology person [40:16] because turns out DNS skills are very [40:19] very sought after and um the the experts [40:23] that we have borrowed their time in [40:25] terms of helping us set this up and [40:26] evaluate and then define statements of [40:29] work um has been really really precious. [40:31] So we also just need to be conscious of [40:33] that. So it will be our our social [40:35] impact team. But I I welcome your your [40:37] feedback on ways that you've done that [40:39] as part of the sovereign tech fund and [40:41] if there are things that you think work [40:43] better than others. [40:45] >> Yeah, happily. Um I mean I think uh [40:49] others in the the call will know one of [40:51] the things we're trying to work on uh at [40:54] SDA um and more particularly measuring [40:58] the SGF program um is a balance of [41:02] qualitative and quantitative approaches [41:05] because we can take advantage of the [41:07] fact that so much uh data is just out [41:11] there by virtue of it being open source [41:14] and there's already you know um a really [41:17] wellestablished uh kind of [41:19] conceptualization and theorizing around [41:21] like metrics in open source development [41:24] particularly thinking here of chaos [41:26] obviously um and we can apply them um in [41:32] uh different project context as measures [41:35] of like outcome measurements really. Um [41:39] and that means that we don't have to [41:41] necessarily kind of um burden projects [41:44] with like extra reporting or anything [41:46] like that. We can just you know kind of [41:48] run these analysis. But what's crucial [41:50] there is actually having an [41:51] understanding for the context and what [41:53] the goal of the project was and allowing [41:56] for um if you like um the heterogeneity [42:01] and the complexity of a given project. [42:04] Um so there will be other funding [42:06] sources. So what we're trying to do is [42:09] complement that quantitative approach [42:11] then with [42:13] um the actual project reports themselves [42:17] >> and then uh testimonials um from [42:21] maintainers in interviews [42:24] and like I think the the big problem [42:27] that we face particularly because we've [42:29] got like multiple programs and lots of [42:32] different types of work that's being [42:34] contracted and lots of different types [42:36] of projects. [42:38] is that there isn't obviously a kind of [42:40] like universal measurement or indicator [42:43] for our impact. So we have to [42:47] contextualize it and build to it. We can [42:49] do kind of counterfactual things with [42:51] synthetic data but that will always be [42:54] uh kind of um blind to context to some [42:57] degree. [42:59] >> Yeah. [42:59] >> Yeah. That's really helpful. I mean my [43:01] specialism and previous work in this [43:04] area has been very social science. So [43:06] I'm used to hard to measure things. Um [43:09] but I'm I'm really open to ideas of like [43:12] are there standards and alignments in [43:16] things that we can be measuring on in [43:18] terms of the health of the ecosystem and [43:20] the you know the impact of funding and [43:23] not least that it it paints a picture [43:25] that helps secure this funding for [43:27] future um and ensures that we're [43:29] constantly involved in that learning [43:32] loop and improving as we go. So, um, I'm [43:35] I'm I'm really keen to to learn more as [43:37] I learn more about this space. So, uh, [43:40] really hope to keep the channels open. [43:42] >> Yeah, definitely love to have a chat [43:43] sometime. That'd be great. [43:47] >> Nice. And Amy, you're welcome to any of [43:49] our working group meetings. We have one [43:51] every two weeks. Um actually I think the [43:55] next time it will be either be Paul you [43:57] presenting right on some of the SDA work [44:00] um or Abby press coming in and and um [44:03] presenting if they're available. [44:07] anyone else has any other questions or [44:08] Amy if you have any questions to us we [44:11] will be kind of finishing close to um 10 [44:14] minutes before the hour but [44:18] just let us know [44:23] uh I would love to thank you for the [44:25] invite I think um very much wearing the [44:28] learning hat so um whatever we can do to [44:32] align I think um I suppose um my [44:36] question really has just been about um [44:40] outreach to make sure that we are not [44:43] only inviting you know building [44:45] awareness because we're not used to [44:46] doing open calls. um how we make sure [44:50] that this is really transparently open [44:53] and also [44:56] um [44:57] meets the needs is tailored to the kind [45:00] of diverse needs of of people in making [45:02] for a really inclusive and accessible [45:05] application process. Um and also I think [45:09] what I've been really learned from from [45:11] Mo in particular uh who was previously [45:14] with with sovereign tech agency was the [45:17] the importance of transparency in [45:19] decision- making so that it's really [45:22] evident you know we've just announced [45:24] today and we're trying to do a lot of [45:26] things with a lot of messaging around [45:30] who we funded why we've funded why is [45:32] the DNS important why is open source [45:34] important what does that mean for some [45:36] of our [45:37] stakeholders [45:39] um but also in like this is why this [45:42] project's been selected over another and [45:43] being really transparent in that. So [45:46] these are just like open discussion [45:47] questions that I'm really interested in [45:49] particularly as we sort of transition [45:51] into getting ready to launch a second [45:53] round and oh we're not calling it a [45:54] round we're calling an application [45:55] window because there's a whole thing [45:57] called rounds with IAN going for um [46:00] TLDDS and bidding for that. So we're not [46:03] calling it rounds, it's calling it [46:04] application window. [46:07] >> Yeah. Nice. It's great to see funders [46:09] being this committed I think to some of [46:12] these pr principles that they have set [46:13] out as well as being transparent about [46:15] them. And it's great to hear. Um I wish [46:18] all of the funders would do that. [46:23] But yes, I on the agenda the only thing [46:25] I have is a reminder for all things of [46:28] open. Um, there's a call for proposals [46:30] deadline which is the 31st of March. Um, [46:33] but I don't think we have any other [46:35] reminders, but let me know if there are. [46:40] Okay. If not, then thank you so much, [46:43] Amy, for being here. Hope to see you in [46:45] some of our next sessions. I think [46:47] everyone enjoyed the presentation. Yes. [46:50] Thank you so much. [46:52] Thanks so much. Bye. Bye. Thank you. [46:54] Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026.md|CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, March 25 2026 by YouTube]] ## Highlights - trying to reflect and think about how we can align our public benefit mission more closely with our day-to-day work. Um, and that's where we sort of came up with the idea of working more closely on open-source uh domain name system um activities. So, we set out really with this fund to improve the security, long-term sustainability and resilience of the DNS um focused on open-source projects and particularly maintainers. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kexj8f830pn869xq473x)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - So, we weren't looking for new projects or innovations necessarily as we set out. Um but but really those those projects that are doing the nuts and bolts of the plumbing of of the DNS um architecture. Um so really keen to have a conversation with you all. I hope not to speak too much. Um but really not only what we have learned in this first year that we've been piloting this project, but we are hoping to scale, we've got approval ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kexrqqhmg2ffg5xc3xkt)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - now for three further years of funding. So it really is a window where we can open up that learning and implement um changes um as we progress. Um I should also say that when we initially set out um to to to look at this area of work, we were going to partner with the sovereign tech agency. Um but for one reason or another that didn't work out and so it is a it is a project that nominate have sort of stood up by ourselves but we really are interested ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5key5sk7dtkp9a2k3s5yv)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - in how we can broker better partnerships, better relationships and kind of collaborate better in the space as well. So where did we start? Um I think any good funding starts with doing your research and doing your homework. So we commissioned Demos who are a digital um think tank, a digital consultancy agency who interviewed lots of different stakeholders to really understand the context of the the landscape in the in the DNS. Um and we ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5keyfvzc41465b3g326eg)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - sources and and and funders of this kind of work and trying to think about what funders or entities would bring the same kind of values or perspective that nominate are bringing to the table here. Um and so that's a kind of TBC at the moment. It's very much just our funding going onto these particular projects that we're uh supporting. But I think that that diversification and and and funders pulling together um can often make things um make for a stronger uh ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kezayxdad00z2h7js9d4)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - process but also in helping us to establish and be transparent in the principles of what we were setting out to fund um and we're really hoping to work with them again as we move forward. um we did follow sovereign tech agency's lead in this idea of being really transparent in the principles that we were adopting um in the funding. So um we set out with these criteria of public benefit um working to uh the extent to which that the the project that that was ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kf07an148drc89j53a5e)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - then the final one which I think is really critical is our internal stakeholders. So we've had to work very closely with communications teams, digital experts, um our own DNS um experts within Nominette as well as our kind of procurement, finance, legal teams. Um so we've held a we held a a really fascinating washup. We use lots of virtual post-it notes um and a uh thinking in in the weeds of the detail of how we can make our offer uh clearer ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kf4rwv461bc0251e1xys)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - um multistakeholder organizations, tech companies, funders and then selected um a sample of those to interview to best understand the system. And it basically found lack of diverse funding and profit driven uh companies providing funding. >> Cool. Very interesting. >> Yes. Thank you so much Amy and um sorry Don and Paul. Um but I my question was ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb5kf933ze8p8jjt3ej62xm)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted